wdfw status report for the olympic mudminnow...for presentation to the washington fish and wildlife...

Washington State Status Reportfor the Olympic Mudminnow

by Paul E. Mongillo and Molly Hallock

STATE OF WASHINGTON October 1999

by Paul E. Mongillo and Molly Hallock

Washington State Status Reportfor the Olympic Mudminnow

WDFW 629

Washington State Status Report

for the

Olympic Mudminnow

By

Paul E. Mongilloand

Molly Hallock

Washington Department of Fish and WildlifeFish Program

600 Capitol Way NorthOlympia, Washington 98501-1091

October 1999

October 1999 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains a list of endangered, threatened andsensitive species (Washington Administrative Codes, Appendix E). In 1990, the WashingtonFish and Wildlife Commission adopted listing procedures developed by a group of citizens,interest groups, and state and federal agencies (Washington Administrative Codes, Appendix E). The procedures include how species listing will be initiated, criteria for listing and de-listing,public review and recovery and management of listed species.

The first step in the process is to develop a preliminary species status report. The report includesa review of information relevant to the species’ status in Washington and addresses factorsaffecting its status including, but not limited to: historic, current, and future species populationtrends, natural history including ecological relationships, historic and current habitat trends,population demographics and their relationship to long term sustainability, and historic andcurrent species management activities.

The procedures then provide for a 90-day public review opportunity for interested parties tosubmit new scientific data relevant to the status report, classification recommendation, and anyState Environmental Policy Act findings. During the 90-day review period, the Departmentholds statewide public meetings to answer questions and take comments. At the close of thecomment period, the Department completes the Final Status Report and Listing Recommendationfor presentation to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission. The Final Report andRecommendation are then released 30 days prior to the Commission presentation for publicreview.

This is the Final Status Report for the Olympic mudminnow. Submit written comments on thisreport by November 30, 1999 to: Endangered Species Program Manager, WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N, Olympia, WA 98501-1091. TheDepartment will present the results of this status review to the Fish and Wildlife Commission foraction at its December 10-11, 1999 meeting.

This report should be cited as:

Mongillo, P.E. and Hallock, M. 1999. Washington state status report for the Olympicmudminnow. Wash. Dept. Fish and Wildl., Olympia. 36 pp.

Cover photo by Paul Mongillo

October 1999 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlifeiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

TAXONOMY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NATURAL HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Mortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Associated Fishes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

POPULATION STATUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

HABITAT STATUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

CONSERVATION STATUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Legal Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Management Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

FACTORS AFFECTING CONTINUED EXISTENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Adequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Present and Threatened Habitat Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

October 1999 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlifeiv

REFERENCES CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Appendix A. Location of study sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Appendix B. Population trend data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Appendix C. Condition factor trend data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Appendix D. Size, condition factor relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Appendix E. Washington Administrative Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

October 1999 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlifev

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Distribution of Olympic mudminnow collection sites and collection efforts inWashington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Figure 2. The number of mudminnow populations found at each elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Figure 3. Number of other fish species associated with various Olympic mudminnow

populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Figure 4. The percent of time each species was found with various Olympic mudminnow

populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Figure 5. Number of other fish species associated with Olympic mudminnows versus

mudminnow catch per electrofishing second (CPUE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Figure 6. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishing second (CPUE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Figure 7. Location of Olympic mudminnow study sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Figure 8. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishing second (CPUE) for Site 2 . . . . . . 16Figure 9. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishing second (CPUE) for Site 5 . . . . . . 16Figure 10. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishing second (CPUE) for Site 23 . . . . . 17Figure 11. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishing second (CPUE) for Site 24 . . . . . 17Figure 12. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishing second (CPUE) for Site 25 . . . . . 18Figure 13. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishing second (CPUE) for Site 26 . . . . . 18Figure 14. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishing second (CPUE) for Site 33 . . . . . 19Figure 15. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishing second (CPUE) for Site 34 . . . . . 19Figure 16. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishing second (CPUE) for Site 39 . . . . . 20Figure 17. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishing second (CPUE) for Site 77 . . . . . 20Figure 18. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishing second (CPUE) for Site 80 . . . . . 21Figure 19. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishing second (CPUE) for Site 85 . . . . . 21Figure 20. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishing second (CPUE) for Site 86 . . . . . 22Figure 21. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishing second (CPUE) for Site 88 . . . . . 22Figure 22. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishing second (CPUE) for Site 94 . . . . . 23Figure 23. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishing second (CPUE) for Site 108 . . . . 23Figure 24. Average condition factor for Olympic mudminnow over 39 mm for Sites 2, 5

and 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Figure 25. Average condition factor for Olympic mudminnow over 39 mm for Sites 26, 34

and 77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Figure 26. Average condition factor for Olympic mudminnow over 39 mm for Sites 80, 94

and 108 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Figure 27. Olympic mudminnow condition factors for all sites, all years and all fish . . . . . . . . 28

October 1999 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlifevi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Olympic mudminnow is one of five species worldwide in the family Umbridae and is theonly member of the genus Novumbra. Three other species are found in North America and onein eastern Europe. Olympic mudminnows are found only in Washington State. No othermembers of the family Umbridae are found in Washington.

The current distribution of the Olympic mudminnow includes the southern and western lowlandsof the Olympic Peninsula, the Chehalis and lower Deschutes River drainages, and south PugetSound, west of the Nisqually River. They are usually found in slow-moving streams, wetlandsand ponds. Within these habitats, mudminnows require a muddy bottom, little or no water flowand abundant aquatic vegetation.

Spawning occurs over an extended period from late November to the following June. Maturemudminnows are about 50 mm (2 in) to 75 mm (3 in) long. Males become brightly colored andaggressive during spawning. Females deposit eggs in vegetation and they hatch in approximatelyten days.

Little is known about mudminnow mortality. However, they are less abundant when associatedwith both native and exotic species of fish. It is not known whether this is a result of competitionor predation, but some combination is likely. Mudminnows are carnivorous and they eat avarious assortment of invertebrates.

Wetland loss in Washington since settlement is estimated to range from 20 to 50 percent. In onepart of the mudminnow’s range an estimated 55 percent of wetlands have been destroyed. Therewere likely many more mudminnow populations before settlement of Washington because muchmore wetland habitat was available. There are now a myriad of federal, state, county and citywetland regulations. The rate of loss has been reduced, but despite the regulations there are stilllosses of 280 to 800 ha (700 to 2000 ac) each year.

Nearly 90 percent of the mudminnow populations monitored in this study seem to be stable. However, mudminnows are completely dependent on healthy wetland habitat for their survival. Because of this, and the Olympic mudminnow’s very restricted range and the continuing loss ofwetlands, we believe they are vulnerable and likely to become threatened or endangered in asignificant portion of its range without cooperative management. The Department of Fish andWildlife recommends that the Olympic mudminnow be designated as a sensitive species inWashington.

October 1999 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife1

TAXONOMY

Olympic mudminnows (Novumbra hubbsi) were first described by Schultz (1929) from adrainage ditch near Satsop, Washington. They belong to the family Umbridae, orderSalmoniformes, suborder Escoidei. There are four species from this family in North America andone in eastern Europe and Asia. The Olympic mudminnow is the sole surviving member of itsgenus, Novumbra. Novumbra contains one other species which is only known from fossilrecords (Cavender 1969).

DESCRIPTION

Under normal conditions, the Olympic mudminnow is a rather drab colored fish, olive-green withfaint vertical bars on its sides and a slightly lighter belly. However, during breeding season, themale becomes quite colorful. Its body color darkens to chocolate brown or black, and about 15vertical bars form on its sides that range from an iridescent green to a white or blue. The dorsaland anal fins usually have sky blue edging, but may be yellow or white (Hagen et al. 1972). The color intensity varies and can be very brilliant.

Olympic mudminnows are also characterized by soft dorsal and anal fins of about equal length,both of which are set far back on the body. They have a truncated or slightly indented caudal finand lack a lateral line. The upper jaw is nonprotractile and there is no groove between the lip andthe snout (Wydoski and Whitney 1979).

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) measured 1307 Olympic mudminnows. They averaged a total length of 52 mm ( 2.05 in), with a maximum length of 88 mm (3.46 in) anda minimum length of 22 mm (.86 in). Hagen et al. (1972) measured 61 males that averaged 53.6mm (2.11 in) and 74 females that averaged 54.4 mm (2.18 in). GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

North America

The Olympic mudminnow is found only in Washington State.

Washington

Current distribution of the Olympic mudminnow includes the southern and western lowlands ofthe Olympic Peninsula, the Chehalis and lower Deschutes River drainages, and south PugetSound lowlands west of the Nisqually River (Fig. 1). This distribution was dictated by theglacial history of western Washington during the Pleistocene Era (Crandell 1965, McPhail 1967,Meldrim 1968). Both the Chehalis River and Lake Ozette were ice free during the last glaciationand provided refugia for Olympic mudminnows as well as many other species. Mudminnows


Figure 1. Distribution of Olympic mudminnow collection sites and collection efforts in Washington.


Figure 2. The number of mudminnow populations found ateach elevation.

dispersed to suitable habitats as ice receded 14,000 years ago. Mudminnows are intolerant of saltand avoid current (Meldrim 1968). These two variables limited dispersal as ice receded. Mudminnows were never documented in the drainages between the Queets River and LakeOzette until this investigation.

Olympic mudminnows have recently been observed in the Cherry and Issaquah Creek drainagesin Snohomish and King Counties (Trotter et al. 1998). WDFW does not consider theseobservations as natural extensions of the Olympic mudminnow’s range for three reasons.

1. Mudminnows avoid current (Meldrim 1968). It is not likely that mudminnows would havemoved up the southerly flowing waters of the Puget Trough as ice receded 14,000 years ago. Many rapids were formed in this area (McPhail 1967). We have looked for Olympicmudminnows outside of the known range including areas north of the Nisqually River (Fig. 1)and have not found any.

2. Margaret Lake is found in the Cherry Creek drainage at a lower elevation than at least one ofthe sites mudminnows were collected in. Mudminnows often use lake environments and havebeen killed during past rotenone treatments. No Olympic mudminnows were observed duringthe 1962 rotenone treatment of Margaret Lake.

3. WDFW has over 100 elevationmeasurements of Olympic mudminnowcollection sites. Only one site waslocated above 110 m (357 ft) atapproximately 140 m (455 ft) (Fig. 2). The lower Cherry Creek site is 240 m(780 ft) and the Issaquah site is 135 m(439 ft).

Until proven otherwise, WDFW willassume that the Cherry Creek andIssaquah Creek populations wereillegally introduced, likely fromaquariums.

Historically, distribution of the Olympicmudminnow may have been morewidespread. Fossils of the genusNovumbra were found in early-middleOligocene Era deposits in the Columbia River drainage. The Olympic mudminnow may beremnants of these ancient fishes (Cavender 1969, McPhail and Lindsey 1986).


NATURAL HISTORY

Reproduction

Spawning takes place over an extended period. It begins in late November, subsides during thewinter months, picks up again in March and ends by mid-June. The spawning peak takes placein April and May (Meldrim 1968, Hagen et al. 1972). Water temperatures during the breedingseason ranged from 10-18 degrees C (50-64 F) (Meldrim 1968). The male’s body color darkensand his vertical stripes turn iridescent blue, green or white. The edges of his dorsal and anal finsturn sky-blue to white. The coloration change usually takes place after egg deposition, but is alsointense during courtship and fighting.

Hagen et al. (1972) describes breeding behavior in great detail. In summary, males set upterritories approximately 111 cm (44 in) long by 43 cm (17 in) wide around clumps ofvegetation. Territories are aggressively defended against intruders such as three-spinestickleback, salmon fry or other male Olympic mudminnows. Much time is spent patrolling. When a female mudminnow enters the territory the males perform a courtship display called awigwag dance. After dancing and other courting displays, if the female is receptive the pairmove into the vegetation to spawn. The pair vibrate parallel and close to each other, and with asudden thrust against each other, one or two eggs are released. Females choose the site for eggdeposition, usually nestled down in the vegetation, and may spawn repeatedly for more than anhour. Males have multiple matings over several weeks. Hagen et al. (1972) observed defense ofterritories for seven weeks but speculated it is probably longer.

Eggs are adhesive and are usually deposited near the bottom. No parental care of eggs or fry hasbeen observed. In the laboratory, eggs hatched in nine days at 15-17 degrees C (59-63 F). Fryare light brown, seldom move, and adhere strongly to vegetation. Meldrim (1968) noted twopores on the side of larvae heads that extruded a sticky mucus allowing the small fish to stick tovegetation. Hagen et al. (1972) observed fry dispersal after about seven days in his laboratorystudy.

Mortality

Little is known about natural mortality of Olympic mudminnows. However, Beecher and Fernau(1983) did not find any mudminnows in sites containing exotic fish predators. It is not known ifpredation or competition was the reason for absence of mudminnows.


Figure 3. Number of other fish species associated withvarious Olympic mudminnow populations.

Figure 4. The percent of time each species was found withvarious Olympic mudminnow populations.

Food

Diet of the Olympic mudminnow is typical of a small carnivorous fish. Major prey groups inorder of relative abundance, beginning with the most abundant, include Ostracoda, Isopoda,Oligochaeta, Mysidacaea, Megaloptera,Mollusca, and Diptera. No differenceswere observed due to sex or maturity ofthe fish (Meldrim 1968).

Associated Fishes

Olympic mudminnow populationssampled in 1973 (Harris 1974) and1993-1998 (WDFW surveys) wereusually found with one to four other fishspecies (Fig. 3). Only one population,near Lake Ozette, had no other fishspecies present. Fourteen different fishspecies were associated with theOlympic mudminnow, but only threewere common (Fig. 4). Reticulatesculpin (Cottus perplexus) and three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteusaculeatus), were the two most commonfishes, both occurring with over 70percent of sampled Olympicmudminnow populations. Coho salmon(Oncorhynchus kisutch) were the thirdmost common fish (50 percent), butwere never found alone with Olympicmudminnows. In their study of oxbowlakes, Beecher and Fernau (1983) nevercollected Olympic mudminnows whenexotic fish species were present, butalways found them co-existing withthree-spine sticklebacks.

A comparison of catch-per-unit-effort(CPUE) of Olympic mudminnowsversus number of other fish speciespresent indicates that Olympicmudminnows do not compete well

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

CPU

E-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Number of Species

lnY= -.77-1.68lnXr= .67n= 15


Figure 5. Number of other fish species associated withOlympic mudminnows versus mudminnow catch perelectrofishing second (CPUE).

Figure 6. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishingsecond (CPUE). Site was dredged days before sampling in1995.

and/or are preyed upon by other fishspecies (Fig. 5). As the number of fishspecies increases, the CPUE of Olympicmudminnows declines. Beecher andFernau’s work (1983) suggests Olympicmudminnows are missing from oxbowlakes because of the presence of exoticfish species. WDFW's 1993-98 surveyindicates that the presence of two or morenative fish species may also inhibitOlympic mudminnow populations.Olympic mudminnows appear to be quitesensitive to competition/predation fromexotic and native fish species.

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

Olympic mudminnows are usually foundin slow-moving streams, wetlands andponds. Harris (1974) concluded threehabitat characteristics appear to berequired: several centimeters of softmud bottom substrate, little to no waterflow, and abundant aquatic vegetation. If any of these characteristics weremissing, no mudminnows were found.

A site near Lake Ozette (Fig. 6) wasdredged several days before we sampledit in 1995. All vegetation was removedin and around the site. Water flow wasalso increased. There were stillmudminnows present when we sampledin 1995. However, in 1996 the site wasstill lacking vegetation and nomudminnows were present. Asvegetation slowly returned over theyears, number of mudminnowsincreased to pre-dredging levels. Olympic mudminnow can recover fromdredging if the site is allowed to re-vegetate and they still have suitableaccess to the area.


Meldrim (1968) investigated other habitat variables influencing the Olympic mudminnow. Arestricted tolerance range of water current and salinity was exhibited, but a wide tolerance rangefor temperature and oxygen was observed. In habitats with suitable current and salinity, theamount of light was the most important factor, followed by substrate type, plants, andtemperature. These variables are important all year, but Meldrim observed that interactionsamong them during the summer was even more significant. In summer, the most preferred areawas cool water with mud substrate and some form of shading.

Low tolerance to water current has restricted Olympic mudminnows to lowlands (Fig. 2). Generally, as elevation increases so do slope and water current. Over 60 percent of mudminnowcollection sites (105 sites) are under 50 m (162 ft). Less than four percent are above 100 m (325ft).

POPULATION STATUS

Past

Harris (1974) completed the first detailed search for Olympic mudminnows in 1973 within thethen described range (McPhail 1967, Meldrim 1968). He electrofished 108 different sites inmostly wetland type habitats. He found mudminnows in 25 of those sites and documented catchper unit of effort (CPUE) and habitat descriptions. Population abundance data collected in onlyone year is not adequate for determining past status; however, it does serve as a relativebenchmark. Harris’ electrofishing data are included in the trend data described in the nextsection of the report. There were more wetland habitats and therefore more mudminnowpopulations before development began (see the “Habitat Status” section of this report). However, it is not known to what degree.

Present

WDFW began investigations into the status of the Olympic mudminnow in 1993. We set out tosample as many of Harris’ sites, where mudminnows were collected, that we could find. Eachsite was to be monitored for a five or six-year period. We were not able to find all 25 sites whereHarris found mudminnows, but we believe we found most. We collected relative populationabundance data on 16 of those sites. Appendix A shows the location of each of Harris’ studysites that we sampled. One of the sites that Harris found mudminnows in is no longer a wetland. We do not know if the wetland filled in naturally or through human-caused activities.

We sampled the sites in the same manner as Harris. In addition, we weighed and measuredOlympic mudminnows to monitor trends in condition factor, a relationship between length andweight that gives an indication of the health of an individual fish. Appendix B (Fig. 8-23)summarizes population trends while Appendix C (Fig. 24-26) summarizes condition factortrends. Condition factors of fish below 40 mm (1.57 in) are variable, while they appear stable


for larger sized fish (Appendix D). Additionally, fish under 40 mm (1.57 in) in length were notusually well represented in samples because of difficulty of capture. It was therefore decided tomonitor condition factor of the more numerous and larger sized fish.

Harris’ 1973 population CPUE’s are included in the population trend figures in Appendix B. Inmany cases Harris’ CPUE’s are considerably higher than any CPUE we documented in the 1993to 1998 time period. We don’t know why. Harris stated that 1973 was a drought year. Perhapsthe fish were concentrated and easily captured during electrofishing surveys. It is best to proceedconservatively in these situations. The important factor to consider is that Olympic mudminnowsare still present in all but one of the sites that Harris sampled 25 years ago. Unfortunately, ColinHarris passed away before we began this study and we were not able to interview him.

Appendix B details observations on population trends for each site. However, some generalobservations are presented here. Twelve of the 16 sites we monitored from 1993 to 1998 did notshow any apparent downward trends in population abundance. Condition factors were also stable(Appendix C). Two populations showed downward trends from 1993 to 1997, but bothrebounded in 1998. One population (site 108) showed a decline in 1996 and again in 1997. Wewere not able to sample this site in 1998 because of extremely low water conditions. Site 108near Copalis Beach, gives cause for concern. Site 77 near the Humptulips River, also gives causefor concern. After apparently normal population fluctuation through 1996, no mudminnowswere found in either 1997 or 1998.

Of the 16 populations monitored from 1993 to 1998, 14 or 87.5 percent appear to be stable and inno immediate danger of extinction. Two are at some level of risk. According to WDFW recordsthere are 112 documented sites containing mudminnows. There are undoubtably moreundiscovered populations within the range of the species. We do not know the population statusof sites not sampled.

Future

The future of the Olympic mudminnow is completely dependant upon our ability to maintain thequality and amount of lowland wetlands within its range. Even if all populations are healthy, thevery restricted distribution poses concern for the future. Local disturbances may have profoundeffects on its persistence.

HABITAT STATUS

Past

Olympic mudminnows live primarily in wetland habitats. Estimates of historical (pre-settlement)wetland acreage in Washington range from .47 to .61 million ha (1.17 to 1.53 million ac) (D.D.Peters 1990, Washington State Department of Ecology 1992). The U.S. Fish and WildlifeService 1988 National Wetlands Inventory estimates that only 375,200 ha (938,000 ac) remain,


representing a loss of 20 to 39 percent (D.D. Peters 1990). Other estimates of wetland loss rangefrom 33 to 50 percent (Canning and Stevens 1989). Between 1900 and 1956, wetland losses forareas of south Thurston County were estimated at 55 percent (Boule et al. 1983). This area lieswithin the range of the Olympic mudminnow. Many of the remaining wetlands have varyingdegrees of degradation (Washington Department of Ecology 1992). There are no figuresavailable for wetland loss on the Olympic Peninsula. However, the Olympic mudminnow’sdistribution is in the lowlands where land development/utilization has mostly occurred. Majorcauses of historical wetland loss were agricultural and industrial expansion and port sitings (Laneand Taylor 1996).

Present

Wetland loss and degradation has not stopped. Washington Department of Ecology (1992)estimates a continued loss of 280 to 800 ha (700 to 2000 ac) of wetland each year. Major causeshave shifted to urbanization, forestry and agricultural practices and invasion by exotic plants andanimals (Canning and Stevens 1989, Washington Department of Ecology 1992, Lane and Taylor1996).

Future

Survival of the Olympic mudminnow is completely dependent upon our ability to stop loss anddegradation of wetland habitat.

CONSERVATION STATUS

Legal Status The Olympic mudminnow is a Washington State Candidate species. Management Activities

Olympic mudminnows are classified as a Priority Species under WDFW Priority Species andHabitat Program (PHS). This designation represents a proactive approach to help mitigate theincreasing pressures of human population growth on the state's fish and wildlife species andhabitat. Locational information and management recommendations provided by PHS aide localgovernments and others in guiding growth in a manner which will best preserve and protectwildlife species and habitat. Whenever a project that affects fish and wildlife (logging,construction) is reviewed, PHS species and habitats in the project area are identified. Management recommendations are then made to protect PHS species and habitat. Also, when aproject will use, divert, obstruct or change the natural flow or bed of any water a hydraulicproject approval (HPA) must be obtained from WDFW. Recommendations in the HPA for theprotection of aquatic habitat and species must be closely followed.


In 1989 and 1990, Governor Booth Gardner issued two executive orders (EO 89-10, EO 90-04)aimed at protecting wetlands. Their focus was directional. It required all state agencies to usetheir existing authority to the maximum extent possible to achieve the interim goal of "no overallnet loss of wetlands" and the long term goal "to increase the quantity and quality" of wetlands. The executive orders also assigned specific tasks to agencies to enable them to better protectwetlands.

Two federal programs which provide incentives to protect wetlands are The Wetland ReservesProgram (1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act) and the 1986 EmergencyWetlands Resources Act.

FACTORS AFFECTING CONTINUED EXISTENCE

Adequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

There are no regulatory mechanisms in place to control harvest of Olympic mudminnows underthe provisions of the Wildlife Code of Washington. The species is unclassified and can belegally taken at any time without a permit. However, Olympic mudminnows have no sport orcommercial value. Therefore, there are no harvest issues at this time. Because they are a PHSspecies, their needs are taken into account when a proposed project may impact its habitat. Recommendations for protection are often simply advisory. These measures offer minimalprotection for Olympic mudminnows. However, when a project will use, divert, obstruct, orchange the natural flow or bed of any water a hydraulic permit approval (HPA) must be obtainedfrom WDFW. Recommendations in the HPA for the protection of aquatic habitat and speciesmust be closely followed. Forest practices may be altered to protect salmon and trout through theWashington Forest Practices Act. Olympic mudminnows may receive some indirect protectionthrough this Act and other salmonid protection plans.

There is a myriad of wetland or wetland-associated regulations ranging from local zoningordinances to the federal Clean Water Act. Washington State's 1990 Growth Management Act(GMA; RCW 36.70A) and its amendments has probably been one of the more instrumental toolsin wetland preservation. In developing their growth management plans, some local and countygovernments have adopted more restrictive wetland regulations and included wetlands which arenot covered under state or federal regulations. However, local regulations created under GMAand their implementation varies widely across the state. Other major state regulations whichaffect wetlands are the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and the Water Pollution ControlAct (RCW 90.48.020). Major federal acts include the 1972 Clean Water Act (Section 401 and404) and the 1985 Food Security Act. There are many more state and federal regulations notmentioned here which touch on wetland protection. Despite all the wetland regulatory functionsof various governmental agencies, holes in the regulations persist and wetlands are still beinglost.


Present and Threatened Habitat Loss

Any loss of wetland habitat within the range of the Olympic mudminnow is an immediate threat. Alteration of wetlands that eliminate mud substrate, aquatic vegetation or increase water flow arethreats. These measures may be used to provide salmon access to some areas and could conflictwith Olympic mudminnow habitat needs. Improper use of agricultural, silvacultural and urbanchemicals are a threat, as is accelerated filling of wetlands through logging, agriculture, roadbuilding or development within the watershed. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Olympic mudminnows are found only in Washington State in a very small lowland portion ofwestern Washington. Wetland habitat, the mudminnow's primary habitat, is still being lost everyyear. Because of these losses and its very small range, it is vulnerable and likely to becomethreatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range without cooperative management. The Department therefore recommends that the Olympic mudminnow be designated as asensitive species in Washington.


REFERENCES CITED

Beecher, H.A. and R.F. Fernau. 1983. Fishes of the oxbow lakes of Washington USA. Northwest Sci57(2):125-131.

Boule, Marc C., N. Olmstead and T. Miller. 1983. Inventory of wetlands resources and evaluation of wetlandsmanagement in western Washington. Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, WashingtonState Department of Ecology, Oympia. 102 p.

Canning, D.J. and M. Stevens. 1989. Wetlands of Washington: a resource characterization. Washington StateDepartment of Ecology, Olympia. 45 p.

Cavender, T. 1969. An Oligocene mudminnow (family Umbridae) from Oregon with remarks on relationshipswithin the Esocoidae. Occasional Paper Museum of Zool. Univ. Mich., No. 660:1-33.

Crandell, D.R. 1965. The glacial history of western Washington and Oregon. In The Quaternary of the UnitedStates, Edited by H.E. Wright and D.G. Frey. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey. P. 341-353.

Hagen, D.W., G.E.E. Moodie and P.F. Moodie. 1972. Territoriality and courtship in the Olympic mudminnow(Novumbra hubbsi). Can. J Zool. 50:1111-1115.

Harris, C. 1974. The geographical distribution and habitat of the Olympic mudminnow, (Novumbra hubbsi ) Shultz.M.S. Thesis. Univ. Wash. Seattle. 80 p.

Lane, R.C. and W.A. Taylor. 1996. Washington wetland resources. National Water Summary-Wetland Resources.U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2425:393-398.

McPhail, J.D. 1967. Distribution of freshwater fishes in Western Washington. Northwest Sci 41:1-11.

McPhail, J.D., and C.C. Lindsey. 1986. Zoogeography of the freshwater fishes of Cascadia. In The zoogeographyof North American freshwater fishes. Edited by C. Hocutt and E. O. Wiley. John Wiley and Sons, NewYork. P. 615-637.

Meldrim, J.W. 1968. The ecological zoogeography of the Olympic mudminnow, Novumbra hubbsi Schultz. Ph.D.Thesis. Univ. Wash. Seattle.

Peters, D.D. 1990. Wetlands and deep water habitats in the State of Washington USFWS discussion paper preparedfor Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia. 6 p.

Schultz, L.P. 1929. Description of a new type of mud-minnow from western Washington with notes on relatedspecies. Pub. Fish., Univ. Wash. 2(6):73-82.

Trotter, P.C., B. McMillian and D. Kappes. 1998. Occurrence of the Olympic mudminnow on the east side of thePuget Trough. Washington Trout 8 (1):10-13.

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1992. 1992 statewide water quality assessment. 305 (B) Report. Washington Department of Ecology publication 92-04. 245 p.

Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press. Seattle,Washington. 220 p.


Appendix A. Location of study sites.


Figure 7. Location of Olympic mudminnow study sites.


Appendix B. Population trend data.


Figure 8. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishingsecond (CPUE) for Site 2. Numbers above bars are numbercaptured.

Figure 9. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishingsecond (CPUE) for Site 5. Numbers above bars are numbercaptured.


Figure 10. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishingsecond (CPUE) for Site 23. Numbers above bars arenumber captured.



Figure 12. Catch of Olympic mudminnow per electrofishingsecond (CPUE) for Site 25. Numbers above the bars arenumber captured.



Appendix C. Condition factor trend data.


Figure 24. Average condition factor for Olympic mudminnowover 39 mm for Sites 2, 5, and 25. Numbers above bars aresample size.

Figure 25. Average condition factor for Olympic mudminnowover 39 mm from Sites 26, 34, and 77. Numbers above barsare sample size.


Figure 26. Average condition factor for Olympic mudminnowover 39 mm from Sites 80, 94, and 108. Numbers abovebars are sample size.


Appendix D. Size, condition factor relationship.

0

1

2

Con

ditio

n Fa

ctor

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Length mm


Figure 27. Olympic mudminnow condition factors for allsites, all years and all fish.


Appendix E. Washington Administrative Codes.


WAC 232-12-011 Wildlife classified as protected shall not be hunted or fished.

Protected wildlife are designated into three subcategories: Threatened, sensitive, and other.(1) Threatened species are any wildlife species native to the state of Washington that are likely to become endangered within theforeseeable future throughout a significant portion of their range within the state without cooperative management or removal ofthreats. Protected wildlife designated as threatened include:

Common Name Scientific Namewestern gray squirrel Sciurus griseusSteller (northern) sea lion Eumetopias jubatusNorth American lynx Lynx canadensisAleutian Canada goose Branta Canadensis leucopareiabald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalusferruginous hawk Buteo regalismarbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratusgreen sea turtle Chelonia mydasloggerhead sea turtle Caretta carettasage grouse Centrocercus urophasianussharp-tailed grouse Phasianus columbianus

(2) Sensitive species are any wildlife species native to the state of Washington that are vulnerable or declining and are likely tobecome endangered or threatened in a significant portion of their range within the state without cooperative management or removalof threats. Protected wildlife designated as sensitive include:

Common Name Scientific NameGray whale Eschrichtius gibbosusLarch Mountain salamander Plethodon larselliPygmy whitefish Prosopium coulteriMargined sculpin Cottus marginatus

(3) Other protected wildlife include:

Common Name Scientific Namecony or pika Ochotona princepsleast chipmunk Tamius minimusyellow-pine chipmunk Tamius amoenusTownsend's chipmunk Tamius townsendiired-tailed chipmunk Tamius ruficaudushoary marmot Marmota caligataOlympic marmot Marmota olympusCascade golden-mantled ground squirrel Spermophilus saturatusgolden-mantled ground squirrel Spermophilus lateralisWashington ground squirrel Spermophilus washingtonired squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicusDouglas squirrel Tamiasciurus douglasiinorthern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinuswolverine Gulo gulopainted turtle Chrysemys pictaCalifornia mountain kingsnake Lampropeltis zonata;


All birds not classified as game birds, predatory birds or endangered species, or designated as threatened species or sensitive species;all bats, except when found in or immediately adjacent to a dwelling or other occupied building; all wildlife within Titlow BeachMarine Preserve Area and the conservation areas defined in chapter 220-16 WAC; mammals of the order Cetacea, including whales,porpoises, and mammals of the order Pinnipedia not otherwise classified as endangered species, or designated as threatened speciesor sensitive species. This section shall not apply to hair seals and sea lions which are threatening to damage or are damagingcommercial fishing gear being utilized in a lawful manner or when said mammals are damaging or threatening to damage commercialfish being lawfully taken with commercial gear.

[Statutory Authority: RCW 77.12.020. 98-23-013 (Order 98-232), § 232-12-011, filed 11/6/98, effective 12/7/98. StatutoryAuthority: RCW 77.12.040. 98-10-021 (Order 98-71), § 232-12-011, filed 4/22/98, effective 5/23/98. Statutory Authority: RCW77.12.040 and 75.08.080. 98-06-031, § 232-12-011, filed 2/26/98, effective 5/1/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 77.12.020. 97-18-019 (Order 97-167), § 232-12-011, filed 8/25/97, effective 9/25/97. Statutory Authority: RCW 77.12.040, 77.12.020, 77.12.030and 77.32.220. 97-12-048, § 232-12-011, filed 6/2/97, effective 7/3/97. Statutory Authority: RCW 77.12.020. 93-21-027 (Order615), § 232-12-011, filed 10/14/93, effective 11/14/93; 90-11-065 (Order 441), § 232-12-011, filed 5/15/90, effective 6/15/90.Statutory Authority: RCW 77.12.040. 89-11-061 (Order 392), § 232-12-011, filed 5/18/89; 82-19-026 (Order 192), § 232-12-011,filed 9/9/82; 81-22-002 (Order 174), § 232-12-011, filed 10/22/81; 81-12-029 (Order 165), § 232-12-011, filed 6/1/81.]

WAC 232-12-014 Wildlife classified as endangered species. Endangered species include:

Common Name Scientific Namepygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensisfisher Martes pennantigray wolf Canis lupusgrizzly bear Ursus arctossea otter Enhydra lutrissei whale Balaenoptera borealisfin whale Balaenoptera physalusblue whale Balaenoptera musculushumpback whale Megaptera novaeangliaeblack right whale Balaena glacialissperm whale Physeter macrocephalusColumbian white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus leucuruswoodland caribou Rangifer tarandus caribouAmerican white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchosbrown pelican Pelecanus occidentalisperegrine falcon Falco peregrinussandhill crane Grus canadensissnowy plover charadrius alexandrinusupland sandpiper Bartramia longicaudaspotted owl Strix occidentaliswestern pond turtle Clemmys marmorataleatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriaceaOregon silverspot butterfly Speyeria zerene hippolytaOregon spotted frog Rana pretiosa

[Statutory Authority: RCW 77.12.020. 98-23-013 (Order 98-232), § 232-12-014, filed 11/6/98, effective 12/7/98; 97-18-019 (Order97-167), § 232-12-014, filed 8/25/97, effective 9/25/97; 93-21-026 (Order 616), § 232-12-014, filed 10/14/93, effective 11/14/93.Statutory Authority: RCW 77.12.020(6). 88-05-032 (Order 305), § 232-12-014, filed 2/12/88. Statutory Authority: RCW77.12.040. 82-19-026 (Order 192), § 232-12-014, filed 9/9/82; 81-22-002 (Order 174), § 232-12-014, filed 10/22/81; 81-12-029(Order 165), § 232-12-014, filed 6/1/81.]


WAC 232-12-297 Endangered, threatened, and sensitive wildlife species classification.

Purpose

1.1 The purpose of this rule is to identify and classify native wildlife species that have need of protection and/or managementto ensure their survival as free-ranging populations in Washington and to define the process by which listing, management,recovery, and delisting of a species can be achieved. These rules are established to ensure that consistent procedures andcriteria are followed when classifying wildlife as endangered, or the protected wildlife subcategories threatened or sensitive.

Definitions

For purposes of this rule, the following definitions apply:

2.1 "Classify" and all derivatives means to list or delist wildlife species to or from endangered, or to or from the protectedwildlife subcategories threatened or sensitive.

2.2 "List" and all derivatives means to change the classification status of a wildlife species to endangered, threatened, orsensitive.

2.3 "Delist" and its derivatives means to change the classification of endangered, threatened, or sensitive species to aclassification other than endangered, threatened, or sensitive.

2.4 "Endangered" means any wildlife species native to the state of Washington that is seriously threatened with extinctionthroughout all or a significant portion of its range within the state.

2.5 "Threatened" means any wildlife species native to the state of Washington that is likely to become an endangered specieswithin the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range within the state without cooperative managementor removal of threats.

2.6 "Sensitive" means any wildlife species native to the state of Washington that is vulnerable or declining and is likely tobecome endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range within the state without cooperative management orremoval of threats.

2.7 "Species" means any group of animals classified as a species or subspecies as commonly accepted by the scientificcommunity.

2.8 "Native" means any wildlife species naturally occurring in Washington for purposes of breeding, resting, or foraging,excluding introduced species not found historically in this state.

2.9 "Significant portion of its range" means that portion of a species' range likely to be essential to the long term survival ofthe population in Washington.

Listing criteria

3.1 The commission shall list a wildlife species as endangered, threatened, or sensitive solely on the basis of the biologicalstatus of the species being considered, based on the preponderance of scientific data available, except as noted in section3.4.

3.2 If a species is listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act, the agency will recommendto the commission that it be listed as endangered or threatened as specified in section 9.1. If listed, the agency will proceedwith development of a recovery plan pursuant to section 11.1.

3.3 Species may be listed as endangered, threatened, or sensitive only when populations are in danger of failing, declining, orare vulnerable, due to factors including but not restricted to limited numbers, disease, predation, exploitation, or habitatloss or change, pursuant to section 7.1.


3.4 Where a species of the class Insecta, based on substantial evidence, is determined to present an unreasonable risk to publichealth, the commission may make the determination that the species need not be listed as endangered, threatened, orsensitive.

Delisting criteria

4.1 The commission shall delist a wildlife species from endangered, threatened, or sensitive solely on the basis of the biologicalstatus of the species being considered, based on the preponderance of scientific data available.

4.2 A species may be delisted from endangered, threatened, or sensitive only when populations are no longer in danger offailing, declining, are no longer vulnerable, pursuant to section 3.3, or meet recovery plan goals, and when it no longermeets the definitions in sections 2.4, 2.5, or 2.6.

Initiation of listing process

5.1 Any one of the following events may initiate the listing process.

5.1.1 The agency determines that a species population may be in danger of failing, declining, or vulnerable,pursuant to section 3.3.

5.1.2 A petition is received at the agency from an interested person. The petition should be addressed to thedirector. It should set forth specific evidence and scientific data which shows that the species may befailing, declining, or vulnerable, pursuant to section 3.3. Within 60 days, the agency shall either denythe petition, stating the reasons, or initiate the classification process.

5.1.3 An emergency, as defined by the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW. The listing ofany species previously classified under emergency rule shall be governed by the provisions of thissection.

5.1.4 The commission requests the agency review a species of concern.

5.2 Upon initiation of the listing process the agency shall publish a public notice in the Washington Register, and notify thoseparties who have expressed their interest to the department, announcing the initiation of the classification process andcalling for scientific information relevant to the species status report under consideration pursuant to section 7.1.

Initiation of delisting process

6.1 Any one of the following events may initiate the delisting process:

6.1.1 The agency determines that a species population may no longer be in danger of failing, declining, orvulnerable, pursuant to section 3.3.

6.1.2 The agency receives a petition from an interested person. The petition should be addressed to thedirector. It should set forth specific evidence and scientific data which shows that the species may nolonger be failing, declining, or vulnerable, pursuant to section 3.3. Within 60 days, the agency shalleither deny the petition, stating the reasons, or initiate the delisting process.

6.1.3 The commission requests the agency review a species of concern.

6.2 Upon initiation of the delisting process the agency shall publish a public notice in the Washington Register, and notifythose parties who have expressed their interest to the department, announcing the initiation of the delisting process andcalling for scientific information relevant to the species status report under consideration pursuant to section 7.1.

Species status review and agency recommendations

7.1 Except in an emergency under 5.1.3 above, prior to making a classification recommendation to the commission, the agencyshall prepare a preliminary species status report. The report will include a review of information relevant to the species'


status in Washington and address factors affecting its status, including those given under section 3.3. The status report shallbe reviewed by the public and scientific community. The status report will include, but not be limited to an analysis of:

7.1.1 Historic, current, and future species population trends

7.1.2 Natural history, including ecological relationships (e.g. food habits, home range, habitat selectionpatterns).

7.1.3 Historic and current habitat trends.

7.1.4 Population demographics (e.g. survival and mortality rates, reproductive success) and their relationshipto long term sustainability.

7.1.5 Historic and current species management activities.

7.2 Except in an emergency under 5.1.3 above, the agency shall prepare recommendations for species classification, based uponscientific data contained in the status report. Documents shall be prepared to determine the environmental consequencesof adopting the recommendations pursuant to requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).

7.3 For the purpose of delisting, the status report will include a review of recovery plan goals.

Public review

8.1 Except in an emergency under 5.1.3 above, prior to making a recommendation to the commission, the agency shall providean opportunity for interested parties to submit new scientific data relevant to the status report, classificationrecommendation, and any SEPA findings.

8.1.1 The agency shall allow at least 90 days for public comment.

8.1.2 The agency will hold at least one Eastern Washington and one Western Washington public meetingduring the public review period.

Final recommendations and commission action

9.1 After the close of the public comment period, the agency shall complete a final status report and classificationrecommendation. SEPA documents will be prepared, as necessary, for the final agency recommendation for classification.The classification recommendation will be presented to the commission for action. The final species status report, agencyclassification recommendation, and SEPA documents will be made available to the public at least 30 days prior to thecommission meeting.

9.2 Notice of the proposed commission action will be published at least 30 days prior to the commission meeting.

Periodic species status review

10.1 The agency shall conduct a review of each endangered, threatened, or sensitive wildlife species at least every five years afterthe date of its listing. This review shall include an update of the species status report to determine whether the status ofthe species warrants its current listing status or deserves reclassification.

10.1.1 The agency shall notify any parties who have expressed their interest to the department of the periodicstatus review. This notice shall occur at least one year prior to end of the five year period required bysection 10.1.

10.2 The status of all delisted species shall be reviewed at least once, five years following the date of delisting.

10.3 The department shall evaluate the necessity of changing the classification of the species being reviewed. The agency shallreport its findings to the commission at a commission meeting. The agency shall notify the public of its findings at least30 days prior to presenting the findings to the commission.


10.3.1 If the agency determines that new information suggests that classification of a species should bechanged from its present state, the agency shall initiate classification procedures provided for in theserules starting with section 5.1.

10.3.2 If the agency determines that conditions have not changed significantly and that the classification ofthe species should remain unchanged, the agency shall recommend to the commission that the speciesbeing reviewed shall retain its present classification status.

10.4 Nothing in these rules shall be construed to automatically delist a species without formal commission action.

Recovery and management of listed species

11.1 The agency shall write a recovery plan for species listed as endangered or threatened. The agency will write a managementplan for species listed as sensitive. Recovery and management plans shall address the listing criteria described in sections3.1 and 3.3, and shall include, but are not limited to:

11.1.1 Target population objectives

11.1.2 Criteria for reclassification

11.1.3 An implementation plan for reaching population objectives which will promote cooperativemanagement and be sensitive to landowner needs and property rights. The plan will specify resourcesneeded from and impacts to the department, other agencies (including federal, state, and local), tribes,landowners, and other interest groups. The plan shall consider various approaches to meeting recoveryobjectives including, but not limited to regulation, mitigation, acquisition, incentive, and compensationmechanisms.

11.1.4 Public education needs

11.1.5 A species monitoring plan, which requires periodic review to allow the incorporation of newinformation into the status report.

11.2 Preparation of recovery and management plans will be initiated by the agency within one year after the date of listing.

11.2.1 Recovery and management plans for species listed prior to 1990 or during the five years following theadoption of these rules shall be completed within 5 years after the date of listing or adoption of theserules, whichever comes later. Development of recovery plans for endangered species will receivehigher priority than threatened or sensitive species.

11.2.2 Recovery and management plans for species listed after five years following the adoption of these rulesshall be completed within three years after the date of listing.

11.2.3 The agency will publish a notice in the Washington Register and notify any parties who have expressedinterest to the department interested parties of the initiation of recovery plan development.

11.2.4 If the deadlines defined in sections 11.2.1 and 11.2.2 are not met the department shall notify the publicand report the reasons for missing the deadline and the strategy for completing the plan at acommission meeting. The intent of this section is to recognize current department personnel resourcesare limiting and that development of recovery plans for some of the species may require significantinvolvement by interests outside of the department, and therefore take longer to complete.

11.3 The agency shall provide an opportunity for interested public to comment on the recovery plan and any SEPA documents.

Classification procedures review

12.1 The agency and an ad hoc public group with members representing a broad spectrum of interests, shall meet as needed toaccomplish the following:


12.1.1 Monitor the progress of the development of recovery and management plans and status reviews,highlight problems, and make recommendations to the department and other interested parties toimprove the effectiveness of these processes.

12.1.2 Review these classification procedures six years after the adoption of these rules and report its findingsto the commission.

Authority

13.1 The commission has the authority to classify wildlife as endangered under RCW 77.12.020. Species classified asendangered are listed under WAC 232-12-014, as amended.

13.2 Threatened and sensitive species shall be classified as subcategories of protected wildlife. The commission has theauthority to classify wildlife as protected under RCW 77.12.020. Species classified as protected are listed under WAC 232-12-011, as amended.

[Statutory Authority: RCW 77.12.040. 98-05-041 (Order 98-17), § 232-12-297, filed 2/11/98, effective 3/14/98. StatutoryAuthority: RCW 77.12.020. 90-11-066 (Order 442), § 232-12-297, filed 5/15/90, effective 6/15/90.]